Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Gay Marriage

If you've ever studied CBT, you're familiar with the term all-or-nothing thinking (otherwise referred to as splitting or black-and-white thinking). It troubles me that when it comes to personal health, everyone agrees this is problematic, but when it comes to national health, our national discourse is filled with this. Either you are for gay marriage or you are automatically homophobic and hate all gays. Why can there not be a place for people who believe in God, believe God does not desire for people to be gay or act on their gay impulses, but who would still never do anything deliberately cruel or hurtful to people who identify as gay? Why is there no middle ground? Why am I consistently made to feel marginalized, being told that I must be an ally or I am an evil person? I do NOT support gay marriage; I will not support gay marriage; I do not think this makes me evil. Feel free to discuss.

84 comments:

I think that's a pretty unfair view of "deliberately cruel or hurtful." There's a distinction between withholding something and actively pursuing something. In Judaism, for instance, we make a distinction between pulling the plug on someone and withholding treatment - in that case, withholding treatment is permitted, but pulling the plug is not.

I do not support gay marriage (withholding in this case) but I do not throw stones at gay people or curse them (actively doing something against them). I do think there's a distinction between a lack of support and active harm.

You're trying to rationalize but you're only fooling yourself. The bottom line is that you are denying people the right to live life with their loved ones in a free and open manner. You are DENYING them that right and that is not "withholding treatment"

I don't agree. If the government wants to pass a federal law, then fine. If the state wants to pass it, and if the majority of voters agree, also fine. But I am a religious Jew and giluy arayaot, including homosexuality, constitutes Noahide law (which means it applies to all people, not just Jews). So I won't support it and I think it's within my rights, due to my religious beliefs, not to support it.

Chana's not saying that gay couples shouldn't be able to live their lives with each other. It's the definition of marriage that's at stake here, not how individuals choose to live their lives, not even about the government granting equal benefits to gay couples (same like in a common-law marriage).

If your religious beliefs cause you to marginalize others, you are morally obligated to examine those beliefs to determine if there is evidence a deity actually commanded them - not to rely on blind faith.

Why can there not be a place for people who believe in God, believe God created black people on a lower level than white people, but who would still never do anything deliberately cruel or hurtful to people who are black? Why is there no middle ground? Why am I consistently made to feel marginalized, being told that I must be an ally or I am an evil person? I do NOT support the civil rights movement; I will not support the civil rights movement; I do not think this makes me evil.

"God does not desire for people to be gay or act on their gay impulses"

He does not desire them to "be gay" ??? please explain this! a good 5% of the population is gay...what of them? they are what they are!

And further, God does not "want" a lot of things! Like lighting a match on Saturday and eating lobster....are you going to try and close down the shellfish industry? Or force everyone to keep shabbat? Why is the gay thing any more important than any other law in the torah?

And one more thing, marriage, as defined by "society" is one thing....and male on male sex is another. The definition of marriage can change, just like it used to be one man, many women, and now only one woman....society can define marriage anyway it wants to! regardless of what your particular book says is appropriate.

When you can't win an argument on facts, shout insults.Supporters of gay marriage rail against the definition of marriage as "one man, one woman" and says there's no reason it can't be changed to "two consenting adults".But if you then tell them that polygamy should also be legalized because if the original definition isn't sacred then why is the number two, they shout against it.There is also the atitude of the post-hippie entitlement society, the one in which telling people "no" is equivalent to saying "I hate you". Once upon a time a parent saying "no" to a child was a way to set limits and teach a child boundaries. Today it offends the child's sense of entitlement. Those children have grown up and see "no" as an insult.

garnel, do you know what a straw man is?? this is one "they shout against it". marriage is how society defines it, with consenting adults and no harm to others. marriage could change again one, if there were a large % of the population that wanted to do so.

the same people (garnel types) said teh same things about black integration into society. now they loko foolish, as will garnel and his neanderthal types

It would be easier if we removed the concept of marriage from our legal codes. Then anyone could freely pledge sexual exclusivity to whomever they would like and no other person would ever need to legitimize their oaths as having any legal standing.

One can support equality of rights for gay couples in a domestic partnership for X amount of time (taxation equality, hospital visits, inheritance, etc.) without labeling that domestic partnership a "marriage."

J spoke of "sexual exclusivity". Marriage is about a lot more than sexual exclusivity and maybe your emphasis on it is why you don't understand the need for allowing gay marriage.

Marriage is a commitment of love, of sharing a life, perhaps raising children (including adopted and/or step children). Sex is probably the least important part of a marriage commitment anyway. Heck, most college kids are already getting more sex than many married couples.

Marriage is a commitment of two people who love each other to build a life together and THAT is why ALL people deserve the right to marry their loved ones.

In which case, no gay couple would actually have economic/first-priority rights taken away. Why should marriage be defined as a "right" and not merely the definition of a very specific kind of partnership.

TPW, to have equal rights without marriage would require rewriting about a zillion laws in every state because there are are about a zillion laws that reference "husbands/wives" and not "domestic partners".

Government should play no role in marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Government's job is to build roads and to provide a police force and army. When government begins mixing into peoples lives is when issues start.

That being said, while I do not agree with gay marriage, i have no issue if someone cares to live their life in such a way. So long they do not impose their life style on me I have no issue.

I'm confused... Are you for or against gay marriage. Your earlier comments ("they are what they are", "people like getting married") seemed to indicate that you're for it, but yet you prefer to rewrite laws with "find/replace" rather than allowing gay marriage ?????

ksil and Mark both support gay marriage. You seem to be misunderstanding each other.

Mark is saying that changing state laws to allow rights to gay couples WITHOUT allowing them to marry is cumbersome. ksil seems to interpret Mark as saying that allowing gay marriage would be legislatively cumbersome. You should read comments carefully before you respond, because there will be a test...

Getting back to Chana's point, in which she wants to be free to oppose gay marriage without being vilified: this isn't an option. This is a free country with freedom of speech. Your rights are not being violated if others disagree with you, even if they disagree vehemently.

You seem to want others to somehow accept your disapproval because you have a religious exemption or something. There's no religious exemption. Your religious rights are not being violated because someone disagrees with your religious beliefs.

All Chana is asking for is some respect. The same way gay people want respect, she deserves it as well. Gay people and liberals, however, often dont seem to understand that. I think back to the event where Dan Savage spoke against bullying. His rant against religion and religious people was one of the worst cases of bullying I have ever seen. bit.ly/IkZALz

Why is it that to you liberals only one side is tolerated? This is why the country has to go libertarian, libertarianism actually makes sense and would solve most all the "major" issues out country is going through.

Tech, I agree no one should ever rant or speak disrespectfully in expressing one's beliefs or fighting for one's rights. It didn't seem like Chana was she was asking for the right to spoken to respectfully; that should be a given. I thought she was asking that others not express disagreement with her because of her religious beliefs. That's asking too much.

I am not sure where you see that. All she asks is that she not be regarded as "evil." She wants a middle grounds where her opnion can be respected, just as she respects their opinions. She doesnt support them, but she respects them.

She does NOT respect them. Look, the law is a yes/no thing. Either gay marriage is allowed or it is not. If she had said that she's personally against but the law can allow it, that would be one thing. But she's saying is that, if her state had a referendum she would vote against their right to marry. THAT is the problem, not the personal opinion but the vote on whether to allow gay marriage or not. ( note that by "vote" I'm including supporting candidates who lean one way or the other)

Is opposing gay marriage due to belief in the Torah imposing one's religion on others? This is something I debated for a long time. What's the difference between imposing one's religion on others and letting one's religion influence one's beliefs? I assume most would agree that there is no problem with someone being influenced by their religion. So here is the conclusion I have come to:

There is a difference between issues that religion creates and issues that exist independent of religion which religion has an opinion on. If there is an issue that religion creates, then asking others to follow it would be imposing one's religion on others. For example, without religion (Judaism in particular) there would never be an issue of shellfish, idolatry or Shabbos. These issues were invented by Judaism. Trying to impose these values on others would be imposing one's religion on others.

However, if there is an issue that exists independent of religion, then one's position in that issue can be influence by religion. Murder, stealing, incest are all controversial without religion. So to pick a side on these issues using religion, would not be a problem of imposing one's religion on others.

Gay marriage is something that was not invented by religion. It is something that's inherently controversial. To pick a side on this issue using one's religious beliefs, even though it affects others who may not share those beliefs, is in my opinion, not imposing one's religion on others, because the issue exists independently of religion.

Stealing and murdering actively hurt others. How does gay marriage between two consenting adults hurt anyone?

simple jew, even if one accepts your personal method for determining which beliefs demand respect, one must remember homosexuality is specifically banned in the Torah. So, as far as I'm concerned, it is indeed created by religion.

What's deemed controversial or not controversial changes with time and place.

Why is it mostly religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage, while other people (who wouldn't dream of stealing or murdering, by the way) support gay marriage?

What you are saying is not true. The taboo exists in many societies that are not particularly religious just like a taboo exists for incest in societies that are not particularly religious. It may be harder to find today, but the taboo was much stronger 100 years ago even among people who weren't religious. You may not agree with it, but to say that religion invented it is simply not true.

The taboo exists in many societies that are not particularly religious

Specific examples? I imagine even those societies that are not particularly religious are still influenced by religious beliefs practiced around them. Even if that's not true, it doesn't matter. Just because there's an existing taboo against it doesn't mean it should be upheld. Until the 1920s there was a taboo on women exposing their ankles in public.

just like a taboo exists for incest in societies that are not particularly religious.

If a significant segment of society had a desire for consensual incest, I imagine there would be a push for legalizing consensual incest. Right now there is no segment of society asking for the right to legal incest.

Tessa said, "You make no sense. So shes allowed to be against it but isnt allowed to vote against it? You, my good fellow, are confused. "

I see your confusion and will attempt to enlighten you. We all like and dislike certain things. I have a friend who doesn't like blondes... So he doesn't date them. Another friend doesn't like tall people so he hangs out only with short ones. Yet another friend doesn't like football fans and so does not hang out with them. Yet none of these people would say that football fans should not have certain rights.

Her religious beliefs lead her to think that two people of the same sex should not marry. Ok, so she should not marry someone of the same sex but she should not impose her religious beliefs on others!

Notice that you conveniently avoid answering about incest. That grosses you out, aye? You cant admit it though because it would rain on your parade. Incest with two consenting adults, do you ok that? Can they be considered married?

It would disturb me, but lots of things people do disturb me and I don't try to stop them from doing it. Seriously.

I might advise against it, I might tell them it's a bad idea, but it's not hurting me and I can't make the decision for them not to engage in self-destructive behavior. Do we allow people to drink too much alcohol and smoke cigarettes? Those may be more self-destructive than incest; probably different in different cases.

You didnt address incest, you said right now people dont want it. That does not answer the question. Do you approve of incest between two consenting adults? Can their relationship be classified as marriage. Its a very simple question. The issue is, it debases your argument about gay people.

I don't have to approve of something to say that others have the right to do it, so I guess I would have to vote yes on consensual incest if others were fighting for that right. I can't foresee this becoming an issue in my lifetime, or well beyond, so it's a nonissue, as far as I'm concerned.

You have still not answered the question. If your state had a prop whether or not to classify incest as marriage, would you vote for or against?

What about the movement of "minor attracted people." They want rights as well. They feel they are just another type of sexual orientation and should be allowed to have sex with children. What do you think of them?

Sorry - minor attracted people ARE hurting others (children) who are not of an age that they can give consent. Didn't I make the world "consensual" clear? Even if a child gives "consent", he or she is not legally considered qualified to do so.

Last question (which I think ties back to Chana's original post)- if you have two people, one who opposes gay marriage and one who opposes incest marriage- which one of these people is more despicable? Do you have respect for both of these opinions equally?

I do like to avoid comparing bestiality and homosexuality because they are rather different. But unless you are a strict vegetarian for animal rights don't tell me you care about the consent of an animal.

if you have two people, one who opposes gay marriage and one who opposes incest marriage- which one of these people is more despicable?

In 21st century American it is more despicable to oppose gay marriage because many people are fighting for that right. It's less despicable to oppose consensual-incest marriage because no one wants it anyway. By the way, probably the vast majority of incest is non-consensual. Just who is demanding consensual incest marriage again? Is there a website I have missed?

My point is simple; same way you wouldnt approve of something Chana doesnt have to. SHe is allowed to voice her opinion. Our society has in its warped ways decided to allow people to intrude on others personal lives through voting. As a libertarian I disagree with that, but hey, thats not for here. Point is, since that is the way our society is run, she has a right to vote against legalizing gay marriage. SHe also has a right to be respected for her opinion. She understands why someone else will have their opinion, respects it and kindly begs to differ.

Chana IS allowed to voice her opinion. I made that clear. If other people chide her for it and she feels upset, that's not their problem. People have the right to speak out against those they disagree with, and religious beliefs shouldn't shield her from criticism. Do people have the right to call her names or be rude? Of course not.

But it is one's right to use the word despicable. That's free speech. In the presidential campaign that just ended, I am sure their are candidates (and certainly supporters of both candidates) who called their opponents despicable. Was that wrong? It is an opinion, which others may disagree with.

If Chana has a thick skin, she will ignore those who call her or her beliefs despicable.

I was not the first one who used the word despicable. A commenter asked me to rank two activities in terms of how despicable they are (the commenter's choice of words). I personally don't even think Chana's beliefs are despicable. I think they are misguided. Am I allowed to say that?

Its not just New Zealand. Do some reading. Give it a few years and that will be the "hot button issue."

Apparently you dont know the definition of chide. I am having a discussion, I have not chided anyone.

At the end of the day, as I have been saying all along, this is a topic which simply should not be voted on or decided by government. This is the way someone chooses to lead their individual life. I dont support gay pride parades as that is a vile way of imposing their lifestyle on me. I can only imagine the uproar were someone to organize a "straight pride parade."

BUT, as our disturbed society has decided that people should be allowed to impose their beliefs and wills on others through voting on personal matters, it is therefore not wrong to vote against gay marriage. Then there is also the simple "tat is not marriage". It may be love, but marriage it aint. All those distinctions, however, would not matter if the government got rid of all taxes (aside for a possible flat tax on consumption) and ended social programs. Then who was "officially" married would make no difference.

Just to clarify, you admitted before that the idea of an affair between a mother and a son disturbs you. Where do you think this disgust comes from? Is it natural or does it somehow come from religion?

Sure, incest between close family members disturbs me, but I can't say whether it comes from religion or not, having been raised with religion. But you know what? I know a family in which first cousins are married, and a lot of other people in the family find it disturbing (I find it a little weird myself). Yet it's clearly not a religious problem.

Just because something is disturbing doesn't mean it must be banned.

Sure, incest is a major taboo. But if people got used to it, it wouldn't be a taboo anymore. That's just a fact, not my opinion on whether the world should get used to it. There's no significant minority of the population that wants to engage in it, articles from New Zealand to the contrary.

I also made a point that most incest is nonconsensual, probably by a large margin. How many brother-sister couples are there, really? Inquiring minds want to know.

Unfortunately, many have reached a point where we share society's values- in other words, everything is moral unless you hurt someone else. People have lost the sensitivity to sexual immorality. Consenting adults permits anything. The things you listed may be weird and disturbing but it's much different than sexual immorality. Incest is not only disturbing and disgusting but it is sexually immoral, even if the adults are consenting. So is bestiality, pornography (especially children watching pornography which I'm sure you find morally objectionable even if no one is getting hurt), and homosexuality. It's not simply that these things are disturbing but it's this depravity that's destroying the very moral fiber of society. There's a reason that Chazal says that the flood was brought when men started writing marriage contracts to other men. It's not simply a sin, it's not simply disgusting, it is immoral. Yes, something can be immoral without hurting someone else.

I wonder if simple jew thinks that a married man having sexual relations with a woman other than his wife is "immoral"

The torah does not think so....

And by the way, the flood came because of chamas, which means robbery/stealing...not gay marriage

And one more thing, we live in a free society, something the world has never seen before, historically speaking,. We have liberty and rights and freedoms that were never available at any other time in the recorded history of the world....so for you to sit there and tell other people what they can and cannot do based on your definition of what is moral or not is highly disturbing. You want government to tell you what is moral? Go live in iran.....

Yes, a married man having sexual relations with another woman is immoral though not necessarily sexually immoral. The Torah places great importance on shalom bayis, and in our day and age when a married man would ruin his marriage by cheating, that would be immoral by all standards.

I was just quoting one Chazal. Whether that's meant to be taken literally or not is debatable, but it was taught at the very least to teach a lesson, that sexual immorality is very important to the physical existence of society.

And I never said that the US should outlaw homosexuality because of it's immorality. I believe that they shouldn't exacerbate the problem by reinventing the definition of marriage despite the political pressure to do so. The US cannot tell a person what to do or not to do from a moral standpoint. A person has to make his or her own choices. But the US does not need to help by creating a society where this type of immorality is embraced.

"Why can there not be a place for people who believe in God, believe God does not desire for people to be gay or act on their gay impulses, but who would still never do anything deliberately cruel or hurtful to people who identify as gay?"

Sure there's a place for it. But you can't ask people to redefine homophobia to your liking. Someone may hate Jews, loath the Jewish religion, and believe that this is how his God wants him to feel. But he would never do anything deliberately cruel or hateful to a Jew. Doesn't matter, he's still an antisemite. Right?

According to the "letter of the law" of freedom of speech, you can call Chana whatever you want in response to her position on this issue, but it certainly violates the "spirit of the law."

Freedom of speech (at least the way I understand it) exists so that people don't feel restraints about expressing their opinion. Personally, I am against gay marriage, but I am afraid to express this position publicly. Why? Because of people who will ridicule me, call me a bigot, and say other mean and nasty things to me (not to mention I am afraid how publicly stating this opinion will affect my career). Do these people have the right to ridicule me and attack me as a person? Of course! But the fact that I am afraid to express my opinion means that all of these people are ignoring what freedom of speech is meant to do.

Chana is not saying that you must agree or even respect her opinion. She is just asking that when you disagree with her, then disagree with her on the issue only. Personal attacks (even chiding) while allowed under freedom of speech only serve to undermine the very concept.

I'm not sure I understand why everyone is so gung-ho about comparing gay marriage to slavery or anti-semitism. Not having the "right" to marry does not stop anyone from living successful happy, lives with the ones they love.

As for insurance or tax benefits. That has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with our legal system. You can change the law to allow gay couples to get all the benefits other couples have, without calling it marriage. I know some people who work or have worked with the congressional committee responsible for changing wording of laws. Every law that is passed has potential to affect thousands of other laws. We change the laws anyway, and we pay lots of tax dollars so people can do that.

I can just imagine in 2025 (after we've proven that some animals can communicate their consent) where people will be fighting for animal rights - the right for animals to marry humans. To prove their point, activists will say "People said the same exact thing when black americans wanted to vote in the 1960s and women wanted to vote in the 1920s, or gay people wanted to marry in the 00s" as if history somehow proves their point, and it's all the same.

I discovered your web site via Google while looking for a related subject, lucky for me your web site came up, its a great website. I have bookmarked it in my Google bookmarks. You really are a phenomenal person with a brilliant mind! transgender

Tesyaa, you argue that any sort of sexual relation should be allowed if there are enough people who advocate for it. Do you not think there is some sort of sanctity to be upheld. Doesn't this seem like a slippery slope to caving into any pressure to allow any sort of act, because we can't withhold people's "rights". Do you think there are no objective standard; ethics that don't change no matter the time. Do you consider yourself a moral relativist?